Round-up of news on today’s opinions

Posted Tue, June 25th, 2013 7:10 pm by Dan Stein

Today the Court released three opinions. A full menu of the blog’s own coverage is here.

In Shelby County v. Holder, this Term’s challenge to the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Court held that Section 4 of the law, which identifies the state and local governments that are subject to the Act’s “preclearance” requirement, is unconstitutional based on “current conditions” in the United States. At Bloomberg, Greg Stohr reports that the decision – by Chief Justice John Roberts – “all but invalidates that preclearance requirement, leaving it without force unless Congress can enact a new method for determining which jurisdictions are covered.” And at Slate’s ongoing “Breakfast Table” series on the Court’s end-of-Term decisions, Emily Bazelon and Eric Posner discuss the opinion. Further coverage comes from NPR’s Nina Totenberg, Pete Williams and Erin McClam of NBC News, Adam Liptak of The New York Times, Richard Wolf and Brad Heath of USA Today, Bill Mears of CNN, Fox News, Lawrence Hurley of Reuters, Mark Sherman of the Associated Press, Robert Barnes of The Washington Post, Stephanie Condon of CBS News, Martin J. Reed of The Birmingham News, David G. Savage of the Los Angeles Times, Josh Gerstein and Darren Samuelsohn of Politico, Sahil Kapur of TPM, Eyder Peralta, Scott Neuman, and Mark Memmott of NPR, and Debbie Elliott of NPR.

Other Shelby County-related coverage focused on the statement made by the President, who described himself as “deeply disappointed” by the Court’s decision. USA Today’s David Jackson and David G. Savage of the Los Angeles Times have more on that story. TPM’s Sahil Kapur covers today’s reaction from Attorney General Eric Holder. And Tom Curry of NBC News and Susan Davis of USA Today look at possible next steps for Congress after today’s decision.

In Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, the Court held that the Indian Child Welfare Act does not prevent termination of the biological father’s paternal rights. Coverage and commentary come from Timothy Williams and Dan Frosch of the The New York Times, CNN’s Bill Mears, Reuters, USA Today’s Richard Wolf, the AP’s Jesse J. Holland, and Josh Voorhees of Slate; Emily Bazelon also weighs in on the opinion on Slate’s “Breakfast Table” feature, arguing that although the case is “heartbreaking,” the Court’s decision is “probably right.”

[Disclosure: The law firm of Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys work for or contribute to this blog in various capacities, was among the counsel on an amicus brief in support of the respondents in Shelby County.]

Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. ComerThe Missouri Department of Natural Resources' express policy of denying grants to any applicant owned or controlled by a church, sect or other religious entity violated the rights of Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc., under the free exercise clause of the First Amendment by denying the church an otherwise available public benefit on account of its religious status.

Hernández v. Mesa(1) A Bivens remedy is not available when there are "special factors counselling hesitation in the absence of affirmative action by Congress," and the court recently clarified in Ziglar v. Abbasi what constitutes a special factor counselling hesitation; the court of appeals should consider how the reasoning and analysis in Ziglar bear on the question whether the parents of a victim shot by a U.S. Border Patrol agent may recover damages for his death; (2) It would be imprudent for the Supreme Court to decide Jesus Hernandez’s Fourth Amendment claim when, in light of the intervening guidance provided in Abbasi, doing so may be unnecessary to resolve this particular case; and (3) with respect to Hernandez’s Fifth Amendment claim, because it is undisputed that the victim's nationality and the extent of his ties to the United States were unknown to the agent at the time of the shooting, the en banc court of appeals erred in granting qualified immunity based on those facts.

Conference of September 25, 2017

Collins v. Virginia Whether the Fourth Amendment's automobile exception permits a police officer, uninvited and without a warrant, to enter private property, approach a house and search a vehicle parked a few feet from the house.

Butka v. Sessions Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit erred in this case by holding that it had no jurisdiction to review the denial of a motion to reopen by the Board of Immigration Appeals, where the review sought was limited to assessing the legal framework upon which the sua sponte request was made.

National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra Whether the free speech clause or the free exercise clause of the First Amendment prohibits California from compelling licensed pro-life centers to post information on how to obtain a state-funded abortion and from compelling unlicensed pro-life centers to disseminate a disclaimer to clients on site and in any print and digital advertising.